While its true that guns on their own don't kill people, and they require an operator. The problem as I see it is, that firing a gun requires almost no conscious thought... If you're pointing a loaded gun at someone, their death is a finger twitch away.

The majority of murders happen on impulse... Someone sees their arse, grabs their gun and without thinking kills someone. People have a tendency to act irrationally in emotionally charged situations... And when in possession of a weapon that makes the act of murder so detached and unconscious as moving one finger, you've got a problem.

The only solution I can think of that would give both sides of the debate what they want, would be tighter background checks and some kind of psychological evaluation of anyone who wants to buy a gun. Plus a degree of basic instruction on gun safety, with a written and practical test before the license is issued.

I think the anti-gun side would be more comfortable with the Second Amendment knowing that gun owners are of sound mind, and know how to operate the thing safely.

You have to keep in mind that the culture here is based on paranoia from back in the pioneer days, through the wild west and into large city environments. The crime rate is high, too.

The chances that a stranger enters your home in order to do something nice are practically non-existent.

If someone suddenly shows up in my living room, I am better off shooting first and asking questions later. If I don't, the odds weigh towards never asking another question again.

The culture is what it is. Not defending yourself will most likely result in not ever being able to do so again. Just because the culture is far from being ideal doesn't mean one has to be a setting duck. Idealism does not save lives.

Who wants to risk their life in order to ask questions? Not me.

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

(03-05-2014 10:12 AM)evenheathen Wrote: Unfortunately we'll never know the kid's intent, your feelings are nothing but conjecture. The problem lies in the way that citizens are breeding a mindset that it's okay to behave this way and be justified in it.

I'm just watching the circus and trying to stay alive. My feeling is that the dead kid was ultimately doing the same, regardless of his poor decision that day.

Quite right, my feeling, is just pure conjecture, as is yours. Thats why I said that there just wasnt enough information as to what transpired.

Unfortunately there are unstable people all over the world, not just in the US. Think Sharia law , for instance.

(03-05-2014 10:27 AM)Dom Wrote: You have to keep in mind that the culture here is based on paranoia from back in the pioneer days, through the wild west and into large city environments. The crime rate is high, too.

The chances that a stranger enters your home in order to do something nice are practically non-existent.

If someone suddenly shows up in my living room, I am better off shooting first and asking questions later. If I don't, the odds weigh towards never asking another question again.

The culture is what it is. Not defending yourself will most likely result in not ever being able to do so again. Just because the culture is far from being ideal doesn't mean one has to be a setting duck. Idealism does not save lives.

Who wants to risk their life in order to ask questions? Not me.

Agreed. And I'm not naive enough to pretend or behave like I live in an ideal world either. But I'll still support the idea, it's better than sticking my head in the sand.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

(03-05-2014 10:27 AM)Chas Wrote: It sure is good that this guy didn't have a gun.

In that case it seems to me that the guy was almost certainly mentally unstable, and probably would have killed his parents anyway, regardless of the means.

If he had had a gun, there's no doubt his arrest would have taken much longer, giving him time to kill many more people.

The difference with a firearm is, it allows a lone gunman to inflict significant or fatal damage against multiple victims, in a very short space of time, without even getting close to the target... And can do so without warning.

(03-05-2014 10:27 AM)Chas Wrote: It sure is good that this guy didn't have a gun.

In that case it seems to me that the guy was almost certainly mentally unstable, and probably would have killed his parents anyway, regardless of the means.

If he had had a gun, there's no doubt his arrest would have taken much longer, giving him time to kill many more people.

The difference with a firearm is, it allows a lone gunman to inflict significant or fatal damage against multiple victims, in a very short space of time, without even getting close to the target... And can do so without warning.

Why would the arrest "have taken much longer"?

You assume facts not in evidence. He appears to have wanted to kill only his parents.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(03-05-2014 12:58 PM)Sam Wrote: In that case it seems to me that the guy was almost certainly mentally unstable, and probably would have killed his parents anyway, regardless of the means.

If he had had a gun, there's no doubt his arrest would have taken much longer, giving him time to kill many more people.

The difference with a firearm is, it allows a lone gunman to inflict significant or fatal damage against multiple victims, in a very short space of time, without even getting close to the target... And can do so without warning.

Why would the arrest "have taken much longer"?

You assume facts not in evidence. He appears to have wanted to kill only his parents.

Have you ever seen the scale of the operation when a gunman is on the loose?

It does take much longer... A crazy man with a gun can take potshots at police or other innocents and remain hidden. So the operation to apprehend him requires far more men, vehicles and care.

Whether or not the man would've killed again I don't know... But for arguments sake, let's assume he would, because these things have happened before.

In order to to commit mass murder with a sword, the man would need to get close to his victims, and could only kill one at a time. A crowd of unarmed pedestrians can quickly overwhelm and disarm someone wielding a blade.

If he'd had a gun he could very easily kill many people from a distance, its very difficult to get close enough to disarm him.

There's a reason why armies ditched pikes and bladed weapons in favour of muskets and rifles... It allows a soldier to attack an enemy from long range, and behind cover.